Post on 12-Apr-2017
transcript
FAIR PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL AND ITS EFFECTS ON ORGANIZATIONAL
COMMITMENT OF LECTURERS IN UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA
MASTERS DISSERTATION VIVA
MASTERS IN HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENTOTHMAN YEOP ABDULLAH GSBUNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA
PREPARED BYPRIDHIVRAJ NAIDU
SUPERVISED BYPROF. MADYA DR.
MOHMAD YAZAM SHARIF
2-
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Higher Education – Important asset to the country Malaysia – Higher Education is a foundation for natural development. The National Higher Education Strategic Plan (2007- 2020) Performance – as a benchmark and it plays a significant impact in achieving
the policies and goals of the government.
“We’ve no choice but to concentrate on quality. We want Malaysia to be a hub of higher education. We want first-class mentality students”
Datuk Seri’ Mohamad Khaled NordinMinister of Higher Education (2008 – 2011)
Performance Measurement - since 2006, 70% of HEI started implementing. MQA – SETARA 2007, 2009 & MyRA 2011. MyRA – Quantity and Quality of Researcher 55%.
PM – Change and adopt according to requirements and environment. UUM – PM shift from Manual to Online system based evaluation. Research and Consultation Information System (ReCIS).
3-
CHAPTER 1
Problem Statement
Lecturers’ commitment towards their institution is reciprocal in nature.(Miah & Talukder, 2012)
Commitment refers to the attitude of the employees toward their organization.(Allen and Meyer, 1990)
Decreasing organizational commitment has a high correlation with turnover.(Griffeth & Hom, 1995; Griffeth, Hom & Gaerthner, 2000)
Psychological withdrawal from the efforts of the organization.(Hsu, 2002)
Annual Achievements Report
(RIMC Achievements 2012 and 2013)
(UUM - RIMC Achievements 2012 and 2013)
Intellectual Property Registration 2012 2013
Original Writings 367 62 83.1%
Other Intellectual Properties 83 31 62.6%
4-
CHAPTER 1
Research Questions
1. Does fair performance appraisal have a relationship with organizational commitment of lecturers?
1.1 Procedural Justice – Organizational Commitment1.2 Distributive Justice – Organizational Commitment1.3 Informational Justice – Organizational Commitment1.4 Interpersonal Justice – Organizational Commitment
2. To what extent does fair performance appraisal influence organizational commitment of lecturers?
5-
CHAPTER 1
Research Objective
1. To determine the relationship between fair performance appraisal and organizational commitment of UUM lecturers.
1.1 Procedural Justice – Organizational Commitment1.2 Distributive Justice – Organizational Commitment1.3 Informational Justice – Organizational Commitment1.4 Interpersonal Justice – Organizational Commitment
2. To determine the extent to which fair performance appraisal influences organizational commitment among UUM lecturers.
6-
CHAPTER 2
Literature Review
Organizational Commitment (DV) Generally relates to the behavior of the employee and their
identification with the institution and their involvement in the organization.
Personal attachment between the employees, and the goals of the institutions they are acquainted to.
Performance Appraisal Performance management process links organizational objectives,
performance standards and performance evaluation, which is used to measure the effectiveness and efficiency of the employees.
Fairness of Performance Appraisal Based on the practices of the organization and the employers
towards the employees themselves and is also the deciding factor for the success of the performance appraisal itself
7-
CHAPTER 2
Literature Review
Organizational Justice Theory (Greenberg, 1987)
Distributive Justice (IV)Focuses in justice of resources allocation among the employees, looks at the relative gain for the work done by the employee.
Procedural Justice (IV)Procedural justice is how managerial decisions are derived, fairness in the procedures used in deciding the performance itself is more important than the amount of reward received.
Interpersonal Justice (IV)individual relationship between the person that executes distributive and procedural justice and the employee.
Informational Justice (IV)Communicating relevant reasons for the procedures used in appraising, and the rational of the distribution of rewards to the employee in the organization
8-
CHAPTER 3
Research Methodology
RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
9-
CHAPTER 3
Research Methodology
HYPOTHESIS
Hypothesis 1: Fairness in conducting performance appraisal has a significant relationship with the organizational commitment of lecturers
Hypothesis 1a: Fair procedures in conducting performance appraisal have a significant relationship with the organizational commitment of lecturers.
Hypothesis 1b: Fair distribution of outcomes based on performance appraisal has a significant relationship with the organizational commitment of lecturers.
Hypothesis 1c: Relationship between the employee and the supervisor (Interpersonal justice) has a significant relationship with the organizational commitment of lecturers.
Hypothesis 1d: Communication between the employee and the supervisor (Informational justice) has a significant relationship with the organizational commitment of lecturers.
10-
CHAPTER 3
Research Methodology
VARIABLES ITEM RESEARCHER RELIABILITY
Dependent Variable
Organizational Commitment 9 Mowday, Steers and Porter, (1979)
0.967
Independent Variable 0.916
Procedural Justice 7 Colquitt, (2001) 0.769
Distributive Justice 4 Colquitt, (2001) 0.947
Interpersonal Justice 4 Colquitt, (2001) 0.948
Informational Justice 5 Colquitt, (2001) 0.933
MEASUREMENT & INSTRUMENTS
Cronbach Alpha value of 0.7 and above is accepted (Sekaran, 2003; Salking 2009; Sekaran & Roger, 2010)
11-
CHAPTER 3
Research Methodology
METHODOLOGY
Methodology
Research Design Quantitative
Population and Sample Total Lecturers in UUM: 1198Num. of Sample required: 291
Sampling Method Stratified Random Sampling
Layout of Questionnaire 5 point Likert Scale, 5 Variables
Pilot Test First 30 respondents
Data Collection Technique Google Doc. Email questionnaire
12-
CHAPTER 3
Research Methodology
Your footer here
DATA ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE
Objective Analysis
1. The relationship between fair performance appraisal and organizational commitment of UUM lecturers.
Correlation / Regression
1.1 The relationship between Procedural Justice and organizational commitment of UUM lecturers
Correlation / Regression
1.2 The relationship between Distributive Justice and organizational commitment of UUM lecturers.
Correlation / Regression
1.3 The relationship between Interpersonal Justice and organizational commitment of UUM lecturers.
Correlation / Regression
1.4 The relationship between Informational Justice and organizational commitment of UUM lecturers.
Correlation / Regression
2. The extent to which fair performance appraisal influences organizational commitment among UUM lecturers.
Correlation / Regression
13-
CHAPTER 4
Data Analysis
RESPONSE RATE
Academic College Distribution Response Response Rate (%)
College of Arts and Science (CAS) 178 52 29.21
College of Business (COB) 227 199 87.66
College of Law, Government and International Studies (COLGIS)
95 65 68.42
500 316 63.20
Response rate above 50% is generally acceptable.(Hair et.al, 2010)
14-
CHAPTER 4
Data Analysis
RESPONDENTS PROFILE
15-
CHAPTER 4
Data Analysis
Variables No of Items Pilot Test Actual Study
Organizational Commitment 9 .967 .940
Procedural Justice 7 .769 .850
Distributive Justice 4 .947 .944
Interpersonal Justice 4 .948 .925
Informational Justice 5 .933 .733
RELIABILITY TEST (Cronbach Alpha)
Cronbach alpha value more than 0.7 is acceptable to conduct research.(Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994; Sekaran, 2003)
16-
CHAPTER 4
Data Analysis
Variables KMO and Bartlett’s Test Component Matrix
KMO Value Sig. Num. of Items Component
Organizational Commitment .900 .000 9 .730 to .885
Procedural Justice .818 .000 7 .605 to .847
Distributive Justice .843 .000 4 .916 to .934
Interpersonal Justice .834 .000 4 .756 to .965
Informational Justice .778 .000 5 .735 to .996
FACTOR ANALYSIS
Minimum factor loading of 0.5 for anti image to be included in the factor analysis.
(Atyo, Adamson & Cant, 2001)
17-
CHAPTER 4
Data Analysis
Variables (n=316) Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Std. error Statistic Std. error
Organizational Commitment -1.119 .137 1.791 .273
Procedural Justice -.524 .137 .516 .273
Distributive Justice -.700 .137 .149 .273
Interpersonal Justice -1.06 .137 1.23 .273
Informational Justice -.554 .137 .020 .273
NORMALITY TEST
The skewness values must not be more than 1.96 at sig. 5% (Hair,et.al.,1995)
18-
PROSEDURAL JUSTICE
DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
INTERPERSONAL JUSTICE
INFORMATIONAL JUSTICE
ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE
Organizational Commitment .434** .298** .525** .628** .581**
CHAPTER 4
Data Analysis
CORRELATION
REGRESSION
**P<0.01, R2 = 41.6
ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE
PROCEDURAL JUSTICE
DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
INTERPERSONAL JUSTICE
INFORMATIONAL JUSTICE
Beta (β) .581 .122 -.030 .129 .486
Sig. .000 .025 .550 .049 .000
19-
CHAPTER 4
Data Analysis
Hypothesis Result
1 1: Fairness in conducting performance appraisal has a significant relationship with the organizational commitment of lecturers Accepted
2 1a: Fair procedures in conducting performance appraisal has a significant relationship with the organizational commitment of lecturers
Accepted
3 1b: Fair distribution of outcomes based on performance appraisal has a significant relationship with the organizational commitment of lecturers
Rejected
4 1c: Relationship between the employee and the supervisor (Interpersonal justice) has a significant relationship with the organizational commitment of lecturers
Accepted
5 1d: Communication between the employee and the supervisor (Informational justice) has a significant relationship with the organizational commitment of lecturers.
Accepted
HYPOTHESIS TESTING
20-
CHAPTER 5
Discussion and Conclusion
FINDINGS
Significant relationship between the four dimensions of organizational justice and the organizational commitment of UUM academicians.
From the regression results it was also apparent that overall Organizational Justice has a significant relationship with the lecturers Organizational Commitment.
Anyhow when tested separately, Procedural Justice, Interpersonal Justice and Informational Justice projected significant relationship, only Distributive Justice failed to register a significant relationship with lecturers’ organizational commitment.
21-
CHAPTER 5
Discussion and Conclusion
Relationship between Fair Performance Appraisal and Organizational Commitment
Organizational Justice and Organizational Commitment – ModerateEmployees are concerned on all the four dimensions and it affects the employees’ organizational outcome behaviors such as organizational commitment (Ambrose, 2002 & Bies, 2001)
Procedural Justice and Organizational Commitment - ModerateDistributive Justice and Organizational Commitment - WeakInterpersonal Justice and Organizational Commitment - ModerateInformational Justice and Organizational Commitment - Strong
22-
CHAPTER 5
Discussion and Conclusion
The Major Influence of Perception of Fair Performance Appraisal to Organizational Commitment
Organizational Justice and Organizational CommitmentSignificant - β .581
1. Informational Justice and Organizational CommitmentSignificant - β .4862. Interpersonal Justice and Organizational Commitment Significant - β .129 3. Procedural Justice and Organizational CommitmentSignificant - β .122 4. Distributive Justice and Organizational Commitment Not significant - β -.030
23-
CHAPTER 5
Discussion and Conclusion
Limited Generalizability 52 public and private, universities and university collages operating in Malaysia (Rating results for SETARA'11 & MyRA, 2012). Taking into consideration the other factors that may influence the
organizational commitment of lecturers in UUM. Cross Sectional Analysis - the study is unable to conduct comparison of
perceptions.
Relationship of fair performance appraisal and the affects work related behaviors’ such as organizational commitment
Implementing the organizational justice perspective in increasing positive behavioral reactions
Area of importance in terms of fairness of performance appraisal in UUM
Limitations
Implications
24-
CHAPTER 5
Discussion and Conclusion
Emotional Factors
Communication and Treatment they receive from the organization compared to the reward that they receive.
Quality work force with productive effort.
Improving in the performance appraisal system in the university
CONCLUSION
25-
THANK YOU
Pridhivraj Naidu - 814284Masters in Human Resources Management
Othman Yeop Abdullah GSBUniversiti Utara Malaysia